08 Oct 2007, 10:05 am
Macbeth wrote:
Also, the term "sell-out" is loosely applied to almost anyone who gains commercial success. It is apparently impossible to become rich and famous just by being a skilled musician, or a bloody good actor, or simply by being popular. Its a BS term. Theres a reason why many garage bands dont get anywhere.. its because they are sh**. Its got nothing to do with selling out. Its got to do wth production values, public appeal, advertising, and talent.
House Negro: So thats an allusion to that whole "yes massah, i pick yo cotton" thing. Any black man who is rich or successful MUST have done it by climbing up a white guys ass, or being subservient. OK. It cant possibly be because they are intelligent and well educated can it? It cant possibly be because they happen to be the best at the job. To my mind, thats virtually racism towards their own race.
The misunderstanding is entirely my fault - I should have quoted/paraphrased more of the track;
http://www.lyrics007.com/Immortal%20Tec ... yrics.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Vl0peys90
In context, he seems to me to be referring to mainstream/conformist politicians, not all black musicians, entertainers etc in general. In the context of the political examples you gave (Powell & Condo?) i think the epithet is quite poignant*, although i probably wouldnt use it myself :p
*Of course, for them to have 'sold-out' there is an implication that at some point in the past they would have possessed some level of respect for third world lands and people, or felt a responsibility of care towards the global community and/or their ancestral homelands. This may not be the case.
Last edited by psych on 08 Oct 2007, 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
08 Oct 2007, 10:33 am
Macbeth wrote:
psych wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
So discrimination against the local religion is perfectly fine then? Its quite fine for Muslims to have piggy banks banned because it offends them, whilst christians in their own nations are fired for wearing a simple cross?
piggy banks banned? So a couple of banks stop producing or using imagery of piggy banks in their advertising. I think its quite obvious this is because theyve pre-calculated that the move will attract more customers, or otherwise increase revenue. Just business - nothing to do with 'political correctness'
Its true that financial motives play a part in these things, but consider this.. a perfectly harmless item is denied one group, in order to gain something from another. That in itself is wrong, regardless of the exact motives. Race (or in this case religion) has been used in a cynical fashion, which to my mind is just as bad as if it were entirely motivated by "offence."
I think your reading a little too much into this. I dont think piggy banks ever really had that much cultural value - were it not for the press, they probably wouldnt even have been missed - just passed away peacefully into obscurity, so to say they are being 'denied' is a somewhat loaded word imo.
Also i think the assertion that 'religion has been used in a cynical fashion' is also a very subjective perception of events. Religion happens to be implicated in this case, but looked at another way you could simply say that increasing numbers of people simply dont like piggy banks. The banks are therefore adapting to the whims of an ever-changing consumer demographic.
Keep in mind that modern banks are amoral corporations anyway (being effectively based upon a type of fraud!), so nothing they do should come as much of a surprise. In a sense everything they do is by default cynical (in the wider sense of the word)- the very introduction of piggy banks all those years ago (presumably as a marketing gimmick?) could be said to be a cynical exploitation of children for increased profit.
08 Oct 2007, 11:01 am
psych wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
psych wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
So discrimination against the local religion is perfectly fine then? Its quite fine for Muslims to have piggy banks banned because it offends them, whilst christians in their own nations are fired for wearing a simple cross?
piggy banks banned? So a couple of banks stop producing or using imagery of piggy banks in their advertising. I think its quite obvious this is because theyve pre-calculated that the move will attract more customers, or otherwise increase revenue. Just business - nothing to do with 'political correctness'
Its true that financial motives play a part in these things, but consider this.. a perfectly harmless item is denied one group, in order to gain something from another. That in itself is wrong, regardless of the exact motives. Race (or in this case religion) has been used in a cynical fashion, which to my mind is just as bad as if it were entirely motivated by "offence."
I think your reading a little too much into this. I dont think piggy banks ever really had that much cultural value - were it not for the press, they probably wouldnt even have been missed - just passed away peacefully into obscurity, so to say they are being 'denied' is a somewhat loaded word imo.
Also i think the assertion that 'religion has been used in a cynical fashion' is also a very subjective perception of events. Religion happens to be implicated in this case, but looked at another way you could simply say that increasing numbers of people simply dont like piggy banks. The banks are therefore adapting to the whims of an ever-changing consumer demographic.
Keep in mind that modern banks are amoral corporations anyway (being effectively based upon a type of fraud!), so nothing they do should come as much of a surprise. In a sense everything they do is by default cynical (in the wider sense of the word)- the very introduction of piggy banks all those years ago (presumably as a marketing gimmick?) could be said to be a cynical exploitation of children for increased profit.
I believe the "pig" part is actually a reference to the way the containers are constructed. (Saxon word for clay, or something of that ilk). I assume it was some wag who thought it would be amusing to make a "piggy" bank out of "pig", in a fit of cleverness and dull humour.
Whether or not these things are all that culturally significant, and whether or not muslims actually complained is fairly immaterial. Recently a school banned hot cross buns fearing it would offend the muslims, despite never having asked if it did. A leading muslim even said he rather enjoys hot cross buns. Point is that institutions are making changes and removing or proscribing items on the basis of the possibility (however cynical the actual motives) . This then leads to the belief amongst the public that the muslims are actually responsible for the changes, which breeds resentment, where there need be none. Favouritism of one religion over another (or race) causes angst between those religions or races. Using it as an excuse to get away with other things is even worse.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
